<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1959 (12) TMI 19 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127918</link>
    <description>Where an assessment under section 11 has already been appealed, escaped turnover must be dealt with under the statutory scheme that vests jurisdiction in the appellate authority, not the original assessing authority. Rule 17(1) requires the original authority to issue notice on discovery of escaped turnover, but rule 17(1-A) read with rule 17(3-A) places the reassessment function with the appellate authority once the original assessment has been appealed. Because the reassessment was completed by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer instead of the authority vested with jurisdiction, the reassessment order was invalid and the jurisdictional challenge succeeded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 Dec 1959 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 23 Mar 2013 11:54:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=164790" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1959 (12) TMI 19 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127918</link>
      <description>Where an assessment under section 11 has already been appealed, escaped turnover must be dealt with under the statutory scheme that vests jurisdiction in the appellate authority, not the original assessing authority. Rule 17(1) requires the original authority to issue notice on discovery of escaped turnover, but rule 17(1-A) read with rule 17(3-A) places the reassessment function with the appellate authority once the original assessment has been appealed. Because the reassessment was completed by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer instead of the authority vested with jurisdiction, the reassessment order was invalid and the jurisdictional challenge succeeded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Dec 1959 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127918</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>